I also think it's useful to realize that others can read the exact same thing and come to a differing conclusion without denigrating ones own conclusion or style.

This, exactly.

Susan, I think "cock" is the term to use in this case. But you're right about Jack perhaps not knowing correct anatomical terms -- I know one author who got around it by having her rather over-sexed heroes interested in erotic texts from different cultures, so they all knew not only the correct English words, but the India and Chinese ones, as well. (Which got a bit boring and too lesson-like, in my humble opinion.)

Jack probably wouldn't know the term "clitoris," but if you could figure out a reason he would... Or what about "quim"? That's a Shakespearean-era one, I think, and it never stung the way some of the others do, at least to my ear.

Also, I'm going to respond to your email hopefully later tonight, when there are fewer children awake and less general chaos.

Maybe I read the conversation wrong, Astarte, but what I read was a conversation about differing responses to work. Some folks like analysis and some don't. That's cool. Nutty got heated (once again, this is just my take on it and I could be way off base here) because she felt that analysis (and those who practice it) was being put down as cold and arrogant and, well, whether you tend to analyze or not (I am more in your and Deb's camp, myself although I have enjoyed some Litcrit classes very much in the past) we have a lot of wonderful people who that very thing for a living, and it felt TO ME as if they and what they do was being put down. When several folks, me included, said bad teachers CAN make analyzing horrible and the experience of being lectured a pure hell on earth, but that good ones can make it an exciting experience, no one even seemed to admit there COULD be good lit professors. That feels like a put-down to me--a put down of many of my favorite folk in the world, as a matter of fact. I don't for a moment think Deb or you meant it that way--but that's how it felt.

And, Deb, if you feel as if you speak a different language, I think that's exactly WHY you belong here. The more varied views of the world we are lucky enough to share, the richer the conversation. Everyone on this thread is unique and articulate and the loss of even one voice is a loss to everyone.

I know one author who got around it by having her rather over-sexed heroes interested in erotic texts from different cultures, so they all knew not only the correct English words, but the India and Chinese ones, as well.

Heh. I've established Jack as a self-educated man who'll read whatever he can get his hands on whenever he has the chance, and that he's on friendly terms with at least one officer in his regiment who loans him books. So I suppose I could just have Captain So-and-So purchase a copy of the Kama Sutra from a shabby bookstall in Lisbon....

Or not. Though I've got to say I'm loving the mental image of a bunch of horny, lonely Riflemen paging through such a work.

Also:

Also, I'm going to respond to your email hopefully later tonight, when there are fewer children awake and less general chaos.

Cool! I'll be looking forward to it.

loving the mental image of a bunch of horny, lonely Riflemen paging through such a work.

Oooh-h-h. He would be much more enlightened in the skills of lovemaking than his rough exterior and background would suggest, also.... ...Methinks my heart just did a little pittypat, there.

Methinks my heart just did a little pittypat, there.

I live to serve.

Susan, insent.

Methinks my heart just did a little pittypat, there.

Heh.

I live to serve.

Heh heh.

Got it, Amy--will reply soonish.

I'm still very puzzled as to what has made Deb want to leave. The length and breadth of my intent was to ask that people not be dismissive and unkind when discussing matters close to my heart. Is it not possible to discuss things one doesn't like without being dismissive and unkind? I hope not.

I guess I don't really understand what analysis is. When I get feedback, isn't that analysis? Nutty or Jessica or ita, can you give me a simple explanation of what analysis is?

Okay -- Stephanie Zacharek wrote an essay in the 8th season of the X-Files to the effect that the whole season was about the anxieties of pregnancy and birth. She pointed out how the Butt Genie, and the Jebuslug, and several other villains of the week, all mirrored a certain fear of invasion of the human body by a frightening, animalistic power. That's analysis. Unfortunately, it's possible to write clever analysis about a show that sucks, and actually be interesting enough and provocative enough that it makes me want to watch the episodes again, despite their being bad, just to see if I agree with her.

It's possible to think a thing is total crap, and still find it rich for analysis -- like, say, XF season 8. In some ways, it's easier to analyze total crap, because it tends to be clunkily obvious in its themes.

Saying, "I liked Season 6, and this is why" is a review. Saying, "The theme of season 6 is growing up and getting over one's inner moppet, and this is why I think that" is analysis. I think most feedback tends to be more review-like, but occasionally, and especially with people I know well enough to converse comfortably, it turns into analysis.

I think very little feedback is critique, since most people assume that by the time they're reading it, the story is finished and won't be revised.